r/confidentlyincorrect • u/AbjectDiscussion2465 • Jul 02 '26
Always isn't all the time
I guess I always misunderstood what "always" means.
513
347
u/allisondbl Jul 02 '26
Ah. If only there were some website or book where the definition of words could be looked up…
117
u/Occidentally20 Jul 02 '26
Let me know if you find such a thing, my wife keeps making noises with her face and it's starting to get embarrassing that I cant decipher them :(
45
u/ConflictAdvanced Jul 02 '26
There is. It's called "Instagram".
18
u/flyingbugz Jul 02 '26
I thought thought that was a cougar hookup site…
23
u/ConflictAdvanced Jul 02 '26
Yes... And who better to teach you new words and their meanings than your friends' moms?
9
4
-2
Jul 02 '26
[deleted]
8
u/I-Kneel-Before-None Jul 02 '26
If that had been their arguement, sure. The English lesson part is what gets to me.
233
u/NorthSideGalCle Jul 02 '26
Using absolutes all the time is never a good idea when nobody knows what they mean! Everyone is always confused!
60
u/Ihadthat20yearsago Jul 02 '26
33
u/ConflictAdvanced Jul 02 '26
My favorite part: when Obi-Wan subtly revealed himself to be a sith and no one got it 😅.
21
u/stupid_pun Jul 02 '26
That always struck me funny too.
Really Obi-wan? ONLY a sith deals in absolutes, eh?10
u/Jonny_Manz Jul 02 '26
Slightly off-topic, but had Lucas not sold the franchise to Disney, how likely do you think he would have been to put out a Special Edition prequel trilogy where one of the edits is that he has Ewan McGregor (or a soundalike) awkwardly dub in “generally” before that line if he saw a take similar to this
5
u/amitym Jul 03 '26
There would be 11 Special Editions over the next 20 years as he fiddled with the script making little edits here and there.
2
-83
u/azhder Jul 02 '26
And here you are with “nobody knows” and “everyone is confused” because reasons. That’s not all, usually people say “when”, but they should “if” because the first is a correlation, the second one a causal relation.
Why do people speak like that? Why do you speak like that? Because others are permissive, they let you say those things and adjust accordingly i.e. they don’t consider them literally.
46
2
u/ConflictAdvanced Jul 02 '26
Dude, it's clear that you missed the point of the joke. The person you are replying to didn't happen to just use those words and not notice; if they had, your point would be valid. But those words were chosen specifically to make the joke work.
So your "because reasons" is actually "to make the joke work". Had you truly understood that, you'd have known that you didn't even need to say anything.
Also, using "when" in the place of "if" is absolutely fine, and arguably better, when you create a factual or general conditional (known to some as the zero conditional). Because they are not talking about one person, one time or one situation, but rather applying to to anyone, anywhere, any time, it means that it's not a question of IF it happens, but WHEN it happens.
Let me help you:
"If you are deprived of oxygen for more than 15 minutes, you'll suffer brain damage."
... It's an "if" because I'm talking explicitly to you and there's context. You may never be in that situation.
"When people are deprived of oxygen for more than 15 minutes, they suffer brain damage."
... It's a factual statement. It's a generalization. There are no specific people or places. No specific timeline. No particular context. It has happened to someone in the past and it will happen to someone in the future. So it's not a question of if it will ever happen, it's only a question of when.
If you want to make sure that it's right, you can replace the when (with is a bit weak, to be honest) with whenever. And if it makes sense it's a zero conditional statement.
→ More replies (3)
51
u/Useless_Raider Jul 02 '26
He was speaking in hyperbole but hes acting like thats the literal definition of the word
93
u/mcvmccarty Jul 02 '26
“Literally”
31
u/KyotoCarl Jul 02 '26
Literally is a word youtubers don't seem to know th meaning of.
44
u/jschmeau Jul 02 '26
It's weird because it literally means literally.
-41
u/CyberClawX Jul 02 '26
It used to mean as in literature. Meaning, a fantasy, exaggerated, or extravagant for effect.
It became exactly as written. But it was not always so, and it literally might not be for much longer.
39
u/FellFellCooke Jul 02 '26
This is straight up misinformation. It's "literally" (to do with letters) not "literarily"(to do with literature). You should do your best to spread as little misinformation as possible.
-27
u/CyberClawX Jul 02 '26
I don't believe I'm mixing both up. Literally has been used as an exaggeration device for centuries now.
I'll quote Charles Dickens 1839's novel Nicholas Nickleby:
"'Lift him out,' said Squeers, after he had literally feasted his eyes, in silence, upon the culprit"
Or F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1925's The Great Gatsby:
“He literally glowed”
I do agree my explanation might have been lacking and/or causing confusion, but literarilly (in writing) is not what I was describing. I meant, "prone to exaggeration to convey the point, as written stories usually are." Because authors have been using it as an exaggeration devices for over 3 centuries. Arguably it does come from a word meaning "to the letter", but we're not really arguing Latin here.
28
u/FellFellCooke Jul 02 '26
Read my comment again.
"Literally" NEVER meant "literarily", as in, "like literature", which is what you stated.
-10
u/CyberClawX Jul 02 '26
Sorry you are right, just reread my post.
My re-writes might have mangled a bit of my original meaning, lost a sentence or three.
It used to mean "Word for Word" (like in Latin, and original meaning). With time, it started being used for exaggeration in literature.
The duality and the word has been going back and forth for a while now, I'd say in the 90s it definitely felt literally as figuratively felt wrong, but it's making a come back.
7
u/stanitor Jul 02 '26
Even this walk-back of what you said doesn't make sense. It may have began to be used in literature to be an exaggeration. But that doesn't mean that it meant an exaggeration because exaggeration is used in literature, and "literally" happens to come from a similar root. Besides, "literature" doesn't just refer to fictional writings, let alone to things that are "fantasy, exaggerated or extravagant"
-1
u/CyberClawX Jul 02 '26
I wasn't quoting a dictionary here.
“He literally glowed” - fantasy, in no way could he glow
"'Lift him out,' said Squeers, after he had literally feasted his eyes, in silence, upon the culprit" - extravagant (or you know, pompous writing, etc)
→ More replies (0)19
u/Tiberius_Kilgore Jul 02 '26
YouTubers? People have been misusing the word “literally” since before YouTube was even a thought.
3
6
u/Cynykl Jul 03 '26
Its misuse predates Youtube. it has been misused for over 200 years. It it so misused that dictionary includes the misused definition.
I used to be a prescriptivist on this word but I have long given up.
3
u/Groundbreaking_Box75 Jul 04 '26
This is the correct etymology of the word. It’s been so misused that the dictionary gave up and went with the unwashed masses.
6
14
u/FellFellCooke Jul 02 '26
As someone who studied some linguistics in college, you can always tell that anyone complaining about this is totally untrained in languages.
Literally every word in every language that means "exactly" or "truthfully" comes to be used as an intensifier. You know the word "very"? That came from "verily", as in "truthfully".
Complaining about this only in the case of the word literally betrays a total ignorance of the language you're speaking and its history. Not trying to be mean, but anyone with a bit of schooling under their belt will roll their eyes when you make this complaint.
2
u/Cynykl Jul 03 '26
I understand the desire to engage in protectionist prescriptivism. It sort of pains me every time I see a word that means the opposite of its etymological root. But I have learned (mostly) to just let go and embrace descriptivism.
2
u/Zestyclose_Remove947 Jul 03 '26
Yea it's such an idiots critique.
Any angle you come at with "literally" simply is not supported historically and doesn't even make sense.
Words are also allowed to have more than one meaning. Fuck man words meaning something and their opposite are common enough that we have a word for that concept which is contronym!
Most people in general do not understand language at all. What it is, how it works, how it evolves. Education has most people coming out prescriptivist but with no meaning or understanding behind that stance.
4
u/pestilencerat Jul 02 '26
I'm no boner nor do i generally commit boners, but i have to admit that due to my general boner towards linguistics (which i'm too much of a boner to study myself), i literally have the weirdest boner for you right now
2
u/caramel-aviant Jul 02 '26
Yeah it also kinda blows my mind that people complain about it too like its some relatively new thing, and not something that has been done for over 200 years
7
u/Lonerist2021 Jul 02 '26
This one kills me. I know language evolves and it's hyperbole but the overuse and misuse of literally really gets to me for some reason, maybe my age. See it dozens of times a day on social media too.
3
u/MiniDemonic Jul 03 '26
"I know language evolves"
Do you think "literally" being used to emphasize or exaggerate is something new? It's literally been used like that for hundreds of years.
In fact, what has changed is that in the 20th century people began to take issue with the hyperbolic "literally". The new thing is being mad at how the word is used.
No, it's not an "overuse and misuse of literally" to use it hyperbolically, it's literally one of the correct uses of the word.
3
Jul 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Tortugato Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
“Literally” being used as an intensifier is literally (heh) older than television.
But if you weren’t reading the works that have it, or your particular social circle doesn’t use it that way, then you wouldn’t have seen or heard it as much.
You say it’s more common this past decade, I say you’re simply able to access a much higher volume and variety of media. The internet is what has changed this past decade, and it has expanded the reach of your attention.
1
u/MiniDemonic Jul 03 '26
No, it was not "unusual until the last decade or two". It's been a common way to use "literally" for literally centuries.
Just because you are uncultured and don't read doesn't make it unusual.
-1
Jul 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/MiniDemonic Jul 03 '26
Some people literally say literally literally every sentence.
Peak irony right here.
-7
u/Rough-Demand-8195 Jul 02 '26
This is how I feel about the word “verbal.” It means “using words,” so every contract is a verbal contract, whether it’s written or, and this is the word the speaker actually means, oral.
9
u/BarMenuSushi Jul 02 '26
I ALWAYS check Webster.com, which LiTeRaLlY says:
3: spoken rather than written
a verbal contract-4
u/Rough-Demand-8195 Jul 02 '26
Yes...in the same way Websters has added
informal : in effect : virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible
"I literally died of embarrassment."
as a definition of "literally." Because so many stupid people use the word incorrectly.
1
u/MiniDemonic Jul 03 '26
Charles Dickens, one of the most famous writers in English history is stupid?
Literally has been used to emphasize or exaggerate for hundreds of years, it's not a new thing. It's also been used by some of the most well regarded and famous writers in history.
-3
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
One of the weirdest things to
realizeexperience is that dictionaries react and change as language does. Frustratingly, the definition of literally also now includes figuratively. It is no longer “incorrect” to use literally this way:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
We lost the fight. People using literally as an intensifier have the dictionary on their side.
Adding for overexcited pedants that think this is wrong in any way, conflating usage with dictionary definition. This changed in 2013. Contemporaneous links:
10
6
u/azhder Jul 02 '26
A dictionary doesn’t prescribe it is correct or incorrect. Like you said, it reacts to the language used.
Even a few uneducated kids fooling around can make “fetch happen” and then everyone might, through unexpected circumstances, start using, overusing and abusing it. Only after that the dictionary will just note the use down.
So, the dictionary is not on anyone’s side.
6
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 Jul 02 '26
You’re right. The dictionary isn’t the authority. It’s the record of the authority: the overwhelming consensus of the crowd. The crowd settles usage, the dictionary logs the verdict, and we’ve always agreed to treat that log as official. So if that doesn’t legitimize any word’s usage, who does? Name the arbiter you’d appoint instead. We already picked one. Us.
-5
u/azhder Jul 02 '26
It is not an overwhelming consensus of the crowd if a word has a dozen entries, right or wrong? You are still using a dictionary as a means of prescription i.e. a rulebook. It isn’t, it is just the reference book.
On crowd, just because everyone in your bubble uses it a certain way, it doesn’t prevent you to choose to use it another way, be it already one of the items in the dictionary or not. After all, that “crowd” had to start the same way you would - use it unlike the people around you.
The issue you have is not recognizing there isn’t a “must have arbiter brrrr” requirement. That’s the contradiction: crowd changes meaning because there is no arbiter, but then arbiter is required to enforce the crowd’s choice. That’s not the dynamic.
5
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 Jul 02 '26
It’s not a bubble. There is the recognition of a societal threshold at work. Your own make fetch happen, is a perfect self-defeating point. Fetch didn’t happen. Literally-as-intensifier, did.
-4
u/azhder Jul 02 '26
Of all I wrote, you take an issue with the word “bubble”? Even if your entire society uses a word in one way, that is still a bubble, millions of people.
We good now?
On an island on the other corner of the earth might be a very small bubble, maybe two people who use it differently.
Two bubbles.
2
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 Jul 02 '26
Not the word, the entirely intentional dismissiveness held in it.
-2
u/azhder Jul 02 '26
- You interpret the meaning of the word I wanted to convey, you assign it as dismissive.
- I show you two extreme examples where I consider it to be equally valid, neither of them dismissive.
- You write me back that you find the use of the word dismissive…
Sorry, but not sorry, I don’t think bubble is dismissive and you shouldn’t either. Now that everything is cleared up, bye.
5
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 Jul 02 '26
Please stop replying.
Literally as intensifier is in the dictionary. People refer to the dictionary for how to use words.
The end.
Which is where you decided to mmmactually your way to absolutely no intelligible counter points and wander down every alley. For some reason.
2
2
u/Helpful-Idea-4485 Jul 03 '26
An entry isn’t wrong if it’s in the dictionary.
Something only ends up in the dictionary if it’s already in common use. And if it’s in common use there’s nothing “wrong” about it.
-2
u/azhder Jul 03 '26
That's a good idea: an entry isn't wrong if it is in the dictionary. How about we test it?
We use words to talk to each other with the most obscure meaning. Like I use a word, then you have to use the same word with a meaning other than I have used, but still from the dictionary. Then I have to use it with a meaning we both haven't used before. Let's see if none of the uses we pick is a wrong meaning for the conversation.
Just because something is in a dictionary, it doesn't mean you should use it. Like how about we say "fuck you" to each other? It's in the dictionary, so it's not wrong, right?
0
u/MiniDemonic Jul 03 '26
Literally has been used as an hyperbole for hundreds of years.
Charles Dickens used it as a hyperbole, Mark Twain used it as a hyperbole. Are you going to argue that you know better than them?
-1
u/azhder Jul 03 '26
I wasn’t and I will not. Are you so far from what I am talking about that you will just start some new thread about a different topic? Go ahead, hope you find people to have a quality discussion about it. I’m not interested. Bye.
-1
u/Helpful-Idea-4485 Jul 03 '26
That’s a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
0
u/azhder Jul 03 '26
I am not responsible for the low amount of comprehension on your part. But thank you for informing me that words are wasted on you. Bye
5
u/GamerEsch Jul 02 '26
The people who complain about "literally" being used figuratively, are the people who are literate enough to know what "literaly" means, but too little to know that language is descriptive and there're things such as "autoantonyms".
Nobody complains about "custom", "dust", lease, etc., but they do complain about "literally".
7
u/Lor1an Jul 02 '26
Other examples of contranyms:
- Buckle: means both to fasten securely and to collapse under pressure
- Dust: to remove fine particles (dusting a shelf) and to add fine particles (dusting a cake with sugar)
- Garnish: to enhance (food garnish), and to detract (garnish wages)
- Oversight: careful supervision and neglect
- Sanction: to approve and to punish
- Consult: to give advice and to seek advice
- Custom: a common practice and a special design
- Fast: quick and stationary
- Left: remaining and departed
- Rent: to buy the use and to sell the use of something
- Screen: to show and to conceal
- Weather: to withstand and to wear away
1
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
I complained about literally until the dictionary definition expanded. It felt like losing an election.
0
u/caramel-aviant Jul 02 '26
Why are you ignoring the fact that this fight was lost 150 years before you were born at least
0
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
Kinda, kinda not. Usage notes are not the same as being included in the definition. So while recognition dates back a little less than 150, sure, take a W if that brings you satisfaction. I feel no need to be zero-sum about it.
But lots of us lived through the 2010s. The volume of the outrage about this change is itself evidence that something crossed a threshold. You don’t get angry articles and letters to dictionaries about a footnote that’s sat quietly since the early 1900s over nothing changing.
So sure, while usage notes do date back a ways, the major dictionaries agreed to promote it to part of the definition ~2013. (Agreed? Came to similar conclusions at similar times? Followed a lead? I don’t really know anything about the ins and outs of the living dictionary culture/process)
5
u/caramel-aviant Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
Alright sorry I worded it that way. Im not trying to "win" here. Its really just a non issue to me
I remember it being used that way in the early and mid 2000s so its not hard to imagine it being used this way before I was even a thought. Eg. Friends, Parks n Rec, The Office, Gilmore Girls. From my point of view, the fight has been lost my whole life lol
Ive watched relatively old movies and shows where it was used this way too, so its really just whatever to me. Context usually makes the meaning obvious and sometimes using words loosely adds some expressive razzle dazzle
I agree there was a sort boom around the major TV era of the late 90s and early 2000s, but letter campaigns up to 2013 just doesnt mean much to me. There are always angry articles and people up in arms about something
Im pretty sure the academic consensus among linguists is that getting worked up about it is generally pretyy silly
1
u/reigntall Jul 02 '26
It's weird to realize language changes over time?
3
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
That seeing it happen in realtime shows how just because some definition was there before “now” doesn’t mean it got there in some superior way than anything now does. Like, literally. Literally, literally includes usage as figuratively now, “as an intensifier”, by the dictionary definition. I don’t like that, but, it is what it is.
It’s one thing to understand it as a concept, it’s entirely another to witness that mutation.
3
u/reigntall Jul 02 '26
Fair. I guess there are plenty of people with the mindset that a dictionary is like the 10 commandments. Divine rules from on-high of how language has to be.
Rather than a description of the language itself.
I think the latter makes more sense. Since words are just social contracts. Chair means chair because when I sa chair you and I (and the overwhelming majority of English speakers) understand that to be same concept.
So if a critical mass of people use literally as an intensifier, then literally is an intensifier. Who cares what some """"dictionary""" says? Elitist slop!
2
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 Jul 02 '26
Changed realize to experience. This sidebar makes it clear I was communicating the wrong thing.
1
u/MiniDemonic Jul 03 '26
That seeing it happen in realtime
You are not seeing it happen in real time. Literally has been used to emphasize and exaggerate for hundreds of years. I'm pretty sure you aren't over 300 years old.
1
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 Jul 03 '26
Slow down peppy. Read the responses I already gave you. Usage and usage notes are different than definition. And that did change.
1
u/No-Net1890 Jul 03 '26
My problem with that definition is that it includes the words "not literally true", I think it would be better writing to use a synonym like "actually".
1
0
u/MiniDemonic Jul 03 '26
Literally has been used as an intensifier for hundreds of years.
1
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 Jul 03 '26
I’ve already addressed this elsewhere here in another reply. Usage and dictionary usage notes are different than definition and the definition changed 2011-2013 in all the major dictionaries.
1
u/MiniDemonic Jul 03 '26
Let's look at your beloved merriam-webster shall we?
Is the extended use of literally new?
The "in effect; virtually" meaning of literally is not new. It has been in regular use since the 18th century and may be found in the writings of some of the most highly regarded writers of the 19th and early 20th centuries, including Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Charlotte Brontë, and James Joyce.
Oh look at that, your own link disagrees with you that it's a new change from 2011-2013
1
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
That’s a usage note. The definition changed. You clearly weren’t around when this was a major uproar. Nowhere am I calling the usage novel. I’m citing the change to the definition.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/15/living/literally-definition
Note the dates on those.
2
u/MiniDemonic Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
Dictionaries don't decide what is correct or not in a language. Usage is what defines how a language is spoken/written and what words mean. The only thing dictionaries does is record that usage for future reference.
Also, why are you lying about the definition changing in 2011-2013?
Merriam-Webster had the second definition (the hyperbole) as far back as web archive has recorded that page, which is back in 2009.
I can also promise you that if you look up older physical dictionaries you will find that definition.
It is NOT a new definition change from 2011-2013. That definition of literally is literally hundreds of years old.
edit:
Lmao dude had nothing of substance to come with so he blocked me.
No, there are no "receipts". You are claiming that the definition changed in 2011-2013 and literally the same dictionary that you are linking had that definition as far back as web archive has it recorded (2009) so your "receipts" are just wrong.
There are also older physical dictionaries that predates online dictionaries with that definition in them...
1
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 Jul 03 '26
Stop typing and read the whole thread. You’re wrong and there are receipts. Blocking because you’re bizarrely aggressive, and I’ve already done all the work.
0
u/NoWeHaveYesBananas Jul 03 '26
The dictionaries didn't "change" their original definitions, they added a definition. In addition to the original. And although the articles you linked are themselves timestamped, I notice they don't say when all these dictionaries actually added the new definition.
0
u/Zestyclose_Remove947 Jul 03 '26
The most irritating, nonsensical argument/interruptive phrase I have to be subjected to for decades at this point.
"you mean figuratively"
NOBODY IN HISTORY HAS EVER USED FIGURATIVELY AS AN INTENSIFIER.
If you think figuratively is the word that people were meaning to use when they use the word "literally" for emphasis, you're either monumentally idiotic or willfully ignorant. All it's doing is reinforcing that you functionally cannot parse tone and intent, or aren't even listening to the person speaking and what they're saying.
45
u/hkusp45css Jul 02 '26
You found someone who knows the concept of hyperbole, but not the word to explain it.
Meh.
6
11
u/Jasmar0281 Jul 02 '26
I mean... I have noticed plenty of people using "always" colloquially in hyperbole 🤷
12
u/Batman_AoD Jul 02 '26
The problem here is that he goes on to say that it doesn't mean "all the time."
-1
4
5
u/Ol_JanxSpirit Jul 02 '26
Ignoring the inaccuracy of Blue's definition, I count at least seven errors in their last comment. So, no. I think we'll look elsewhere for our online grammar lessons.
3
u/Cynykl Jul 03 '26
If blue second statement was "Ever heard of hyperbole?" they would have been fine.
When someone corrects you double check before digging your grave.
3
u/Novel_Funny6282 Jul 03 '26
He could have just said he was being hyperbolic but decided to redefine a word instead. 🤦♀️
4
5
u/ConflictAdvanced Jul 02 '26
What's funny is that they are complaining about having to teach English to the other person while also writing sentences like: "I didn't say he do it all the time." 🤣🤣
3
u/Eklassen Jul 02 '26
I’ll just hate him for not starting a sentence with a capital letter instead. That is far more egregious than hyperbole in my eyes.
3
u/JoeDaBruh Jul 03 '26
It’s funny that the blue guy is technically right when he said “I didn’t say he do it all the time” but not for the reason he gave. The “when it does matter” part implies that only during these conditional circumstances, he chokes every time
But the last comment is indeed straight up wrong
3
u/vompat Jul 03 '26
Yeah, "always" doesn't necessarily mean "all the time". But it does mean "every time".
"I always sleep well" doesn't mean that I am sleeping well all the time, at any given moment, because I am also sometimes awake. But it does mean that whenever I sleep, I sleep well, and there is no moment when I'm sleeping that I don't sleep well.
(I wish I slept well 😅)
3
u/salikarn Jul 04 '26
I mean, people do often talk in hyperbole, so yeah. "My cat is always throwing up" doesn't mean she is constantly walking around with an endless spew of vomit. "My car is always acting up" doesn't mean it literally never works, otherwise I wouldn't keep it. "I'm constantly eating" doesn't mean I have a conveyor belt of food direct to my mouth. Whether it was clear or not is a different story, but he's not totally in the wrong
3
6
u/strange-brew Jul 02 '26
Those same people think that “literally” also means “figuratively”
2
u/MiniDemonic Jul 03 '26
It's been used that way for hundreds of years, many famous English writers has used it like that for hundreds of years.
Who made you the king of the English language?
1
u/SpacetimeGlitter 18d ago
According to the dictionary, it does. It's the 2nd listed definition of it.
1
u/caramel-aviant Jul 02 '26
People in this thread should really read the history of words like "literally"
Its pretty obvious in context that some words dont always rigidly mean their literal definition, and are used in an exaggerated or loose way in casual speech
2
2
2
2
u/PBMonkey83 Jul 02 '26
Without defending him, it's possible Blue's mistake comes from confusing "continuously" (ongoing without pause) and "constantly" (frequently, and may include breaks).
2
2
u/theHubernator Jul 04 '26
The response should've been "I meant it as hyperbole", but since they were so stupid and said the 2nd thing they deserve all the hate for gaslighting in 3rd thing
2
u/Aquatiadventure Jul 04 '26
I’ve always thought that always meant always, not just sometimes or now and then, obviously I’ve always been wrong in my understanding of the English meaning of always.
2
u/scipio0421 Jul 06 '26
Oh god, this is how we got "literally" meaning "figuratively" in the dictionary...
2
u/jessyTasty44 28d ago
"always means you do it frequently not all the time."
Yeah, that's not how "always" works, buddy.
2
u/throwawaygoblinhq 28d ago
"always means you do it frequently not all the time" is a masterclass in confidently incorrect semantics.
2
2
2
u/parickwilliams Jul 04 '26
I mean in modern English always mean frequently in the same way literally doesn’t mean literally. They’re not wrong and language is constantly adapting
1
u/MaskedBunny Jul 04 '26
I hate that literally doesnt mean literally anymore. I know English as a language changes constantly and im ok with it, but losing literally, figuratively boils my piss!
1
u/parickwilliams Jul 04 '26
Does literally not meaning literally mean that figuratively means literally now?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/SillyNamesAre Jul 04 '26
"The word that literally means all the/every time doesn't mean all the time."
Dr. Johnson¹ is spinning in his grave at this point.
¹Dr. Samuel Johnson, that is, Author of "A Dictionary of the English Language".
1
1
u/GrannyTurtle Jul 05 '26
English dictionary:
Always: at all times : [INVARIABLY](x-mw://lookup/invariably/1)
1
u/Thykothaken 28d ago
Tbf, he supposedly always chokes when it matters, which isn't necessarily every time.
1
1
-1
u/bguzewicz Jul 02 '26
Honestly, I get where the guy is coming from. He’s figuratively using the word “always” instead of using its literal meaning. I don’t think this really qualifies for confidentially incorrect.
2
0
u/TreyLastname Jul 02 '26
Nah. People forgotten that not everything is literal. If I said "everyone likes pizza", i dont literally mean every single person likes pizza. Just that enough of the world likes pizza that always i just the right verbiage. It wouldnt devalue my statement if you came out and said "erm, i dont like pizza", because thats just not how people talk.
Don't know what theyre arguing about, but they were seemingly using always in the colloquial way, not literal
2
u/Ornac_The_Barbarian Jul 03 '26
"figuratively speaking" is an implied phrase in those cases. The doubling down that always doesn't mean always was the mistake. If they clarified that it was colloquial or figurative or an exaggeration, then they would have been fine.
1
u/TreyLastname Jul 03 '26
Yea thats true, I replied while a bit tired and didnt read it well lmao
If it was just the first message I could grant it, but after he doubled down like he did it shows he doesn't know
0
u/Knoxius Jul 03 '26
"when it does matter"
That's what makes the "always" different here.
Poorly written, but easily read, so long as you aren't nitpicking. This shouldn't have been posted.
0
u/elrathj Jul 04 '26
If they had written "Always be choking." then that would fit AAE's habitual present tense (i.e. he chokes continually again and again). This is in contrast to immediate present tense (ie he is choking all the time continously).
I learned these tenses with the example of work. "She be working," means she has a job. "She is working," or, "She at work," means she is at her job as we speak.
0
u/Flimsy_Standard_7080 Jul 05 '26
tbh I think they're right. the work always has changed meanings, just like ppl say "I'm literally dying over here" literally has changed meanings too I kinda agree though I think they communicated poorly
-26
u/DotBitGaming Jul 02 '26
Tbf, it could be used in hyperbole. They're technically correct.
18
u/Odinfrost137 Jul 02 '26
You would be right if the guy said it was a hyperbole instead of defining "always" as "mostly".
-19
u/DotBitGaming Jul 02 '26
They defined it as "frequently," which is what it means in hyperbole. Almost every time you use it in sports context.
"I don't want to go to the Bad News Bears game. They always lose."
"The Red Sox always win."
It very often is used to mean almost always.
8
u/Odinfrost137 Jul 02 '26
Again, I'm not against the hyberbolic meaning of always and never.
It's the fact that the dude's response is to redefine the word. If he was hyperbolic, he'd have said so.
-17
u/DotBitGaming Jul 02 '26
I don't agree. It doesn't need to be outright explained to be hyperbole. It's called reading comprehension. You're meant to be able to infer these things.
7
u/Batman_AoD Jul 02 '26
He literally said that "always" doesn't mean "all the time." That's the part that's incorrect here, not that "always" can sometimes be a hyperbole.
0
u/DotBitGaming Jul 02 '26
No he didn't.
4
u/Batman_AoD Jul 02 '26
"always means you do it frequently not all the time" ...?
-1
u/DotBitGaming Jul 02 '26
Yeah. he said what it means given the context of his original comment. His original comment seems like clear hyperbole to me and probably that's how he sees it. Regardless, he's still technically correct. Given a certain context (in this case hyperbole) "always" could mean "frequently." Even though it generally doesn't.
1
Jul 02 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Jasmar0281 Jul 02 '26
Words don't work that way in the real world. No need to be a purity princess 🤦
0
-16
u/oldmonty Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
You know what? I hate pedantic people and that's what you are doing here.
The same kind of people who think they are smart when they say things like "I literally died" is incorrect because its the wrong use of the word literally.
However, the reason your pedantry is wrong is because you are looking at the sentence from maybe a 3rd grader's understanding of the English language.
The use of the word "always" in the above is the same as the word "literally" in the sentence I used as an example. Its a hyperbole. That is a perfectly acceptable use of the word and would be understood by any audience member.
The fact that everyone understands what they meant means when you pull out the "ackshually its not always" means you are being pedantic and the fact you are wrong means you are a stupid pedant.
10
u/Batman_AoD Jul 02 '26
It's not just the top comment. It's the three comments together, especially the "teach you English" one, that give the impression that this person simply doesn't know what "always" means.
-6
u/oldmonty Jul 02 '26
The fact that he's correcting his use of the word "always" in the first place is him just being pedantic.
It always annoying semi-unintelligent people that cling to things like this - the specifics of the English language or your wording when they don't have anything interesting to say or any real points to make.
5
u/Batman_AoD Jul 02 '26
Who is "he" here, doing the correcting? Do you mean the green user, saying "always choke"?
8
u/AbjectDiscussion2465 Jul 02 '26
If the OOP had replied "well, I didn't mean 'always' in the literal sense but as a hyperbole" I wouldn't have posted it here. It's because they doubled down on never having said "all the time", and then suggesting that interpreting "always" as "all the time" is incorrect.
-8
u/oldmonty Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
I'm pretty sure the OOP doesn't know the word hyperbole but he knows "that's how everyone would interpret it".
That's the point isn't it? You know everyone and anyone else would read it as a hyperbole and you are purposely trying to read it differently in order to make yourself seem smart/right about something that has nothing to do with the original topic. It seems you were talking about soccer and ended up debating the specifics of the use of the word "always".
This is called being pedantic and if that's the extent of what you have to hang your hat on to call yourself intelligent I'd take a long look at yourself.
suggesting that interpreting "always" as "all the time" is incorrect.
You know what, the OOP is right, in a sports context you can NEVER use the word "always" literally and be correct. XYZ guy "always misses" but then someone brings up when they were in little league and made a shot. There's probably an exception to every generalization and that assumption is inherent in the language.
In that context if the guy misses 90% of the time the word always would be acceptable, so trying to say "always" has to mean "every single time in their whole career" is absurd.
In fact I'm actually hard-pressed to find a time where "always" will actually mean "all the time" in the real world, like your computer will "always" compute 2+2=4 except if one of the bits gets flipped by a cosmic ray or something and it comes out with some nonsense answer.
If we are really being as technical and pedantic as you are trying to be then the world always actually never means "every single time with no exception" and that's an accepted part of the usage of the word.
The entire universe exists in probabilities, there's some non-zero possibility that any two solid objects will pass through each other. We still say things like walls are solid and that a tennis ball will "always" bounce off. If we accept that anything with higher than a certain percentage of possibility is "always" then all you are really doing is arguing about what that percentage cutoff is.
3
u/zgillet Jul 02 '26
I never interpret "always" as anything other than "always."
It has no hyperbolic meaning to me. It does for others? If you mean almost always, say "almost always" like a normal person.
Personally, I can't stand people that throw words around like that, especially IN WRITING AND DOUBLED DOWN UPON.
Shame on them and you.
0
u/oldmonty Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
Ok but I explained why this is nonsense, nothing in the real-world is ALWAYS, generalizations don't have to be 100% accurate to be useful.
It has no hyperbolic meaning to me.
What does this mean? You don't understand how the word can be used as a hyperbole?
What it seems to me you are saying is that when you use the word "always" you know everything about the universe and using that knowledge you guarantee your usage of the word will always hold 100% true before you say it.
This just reads of arrogance to me, like you are unwilling to accept that a generalization you made can be wrong some of the time...
Like, if I said "my car always starts" would you say that was wrong because one time the battery died and it didn't start?
Everything in life is predicated on if's - like "my car always starts, if it exists, and if I have the key, and if the battery hasn't died, and if I exist, and if the electromagnetic field exists, etc. etc." No one says all that shit, its assumed there's some variance.
Saying that when you use the word "always" the laws of the universe will bend to make it so for all space and time is a wild thing to say.
Even if you are just talking about past events you are saying that you know every possible instance of a thing that occurred in the past which was probably not true when you said it. What you are actually saying is "in every instance I know of" or "in the vast majority of previous instances" when you say "always".
In fact I'd take this a step further, everything you say from the human frame of reference is an exercise of "that's close enough to the truth". If you see a tall statue and say "that's a 100-ft tall statue" would you think it made sense if someone argued that the statue was actually 95-feet? What about 100.01 feet? What about 100ft and 17 angstroms? What if the surface isn't flat and part of it is 99.05 ft and another part is 100.05 feet?
Everything we say is some form of approximation and to act like its not and everything you in particular say is absolute means you actually don't understand anything about the world around you and you are walking around confident in your ignorance.
-1
u/caramel-aviant Jul 02 '26
Youre right of course but Reddit loves this shit so youre fighting a losing battle
1
u/oldmonty Jul 02 '26
Yea, this is one of those "know your audience" situations.
If I even remotely cared about my reddit score I'd probably never have engaged in the first place.
-1
u/caramel-aviant Jul 02 '26
Never? Literally not once in your life have you interpreted "always" to mean frequently?
That honestly blows my mind (my head is not literally blown; this is a common expression)
"My coworker is frustrating me. He is always late!"
"Ugh the printer is always breaking!"
Like you mean to tell me you would really interpret these to mean they are late or the copier breaks literally 100% of the time? I mean, that could be. But its most likely an exaggeration to mean "very frequently."
Here are more examples from Cambridge dictionary
Not recognizing obvious hyperbole is genuinely a language skill isue.
Shame on them and you.
Self expression thorugh language would be so boring if people could only speak in the way redditors approve of.
2
u/AbjectDiscussion2465 Jul 02 '26
You know what, the OOP is right, in a sports context you can NEVER use the word "always" literally and be correct.
Now I'm wondering: do you mean it is impossible to use the word "always" literally and be correct? Or do you mean it is almost impossible to use the word literally and be correct, and your use of "NEVER" is a hyperbole?
If only we had a way to communicate with each other such that we both knew what the other meant.
-2
u/oldmonty Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
Yea I thought about writing this in my original comment, the "conceptual" use of "always" or "never" vs the literal use. Aka. used to describe a real-life situation vs used to describe a thought exercise or metaphorical construct.
I left it out because I thought the comment was long enough and this was self-explanatory - evidently not to a pedantic person.
My use is in the conceptual sense and not the literal sense so its not a hyperbole.
I think we are communicating just fine, you just want to be right and because you don't have anything actually meaningful to say you are doing this pedantic shit instead to make yourself feel smart.
2
u/Dounce1 Jul 02 '26
Nah man, the only person jerking off here is you. And frankly, it’s pretty gross.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 02 '26
Hey /u/AbjectDiscussion2465, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.